July 23, 2024, opinions

Posted on by tadbartlett

Designated for publication

  • U.S. v. Boswell, 23-30315, appeal from W.D. La.
    • Engelhardt, J. (King, Ho, Engelhardt), Ho, J., concurring in judgment; criminal, sufficiency of evidence, timeliness, restitution
    • Reversing conviction for bankruptcy fraud, but affirming conviction for tax evasion and order of restitution as condition of supervised release.
    • The Court held that the defendant’s indictment for bankruptcy fraud should have been dismissed as untimely, as it was not unsealed until six months after the 5-year statute of limitations had run; the Court held that “the Government failed to establish a legitimate prosecutorial purpose for sealing the indictment,” such that the sealing of the indictment could not toll the limitations period.
    • Judge Ho concurred in part and concurred in the judgment. He would have found that the defendant was entitled to a Sharpe hearing, but acknowledged that that issue did not affect the outcome, given the Government’s failure to show a proper purpose for sealing the indictment.
  • SO Apartments, L.L.C. v. City of San Antonio, 23-50706, appeal from W.D. Tex.
    • Higginbotham, J. (Higginbotham, Stewart, Higginson), preliminary injunction, Fourth Amendment, Due Process
    • Affirming denial of preliminary injunction to plaintiff apartment complexes in their challenge of a city’s apartment inspection program and institution of fines and fees for code violations.
  • Papin v. University of Mississippi Medical Center, 23-60316, appeal from S.D. Miss.
    • Higginson, J. (Wiener, Haynes, Higginson), Haynes, J., dissenting; employment, breach of contract
    • Affirming district court’s Judgment as a Matter of Law in favor of employer after trial and jury verdict for plaintiff on plaintiff’s claims that termination as a medical resident was a breach of an employment contract. The Court held that no reasonable jury could have found that a Remediation Agreement between the plaintiff and his supervisor constituted an employment contract because the supervisor did not have authority to enter into an employment agreement on behalf of the defendant medical center.
    • Judge Haynes dissented. She would find that a separate agreement, the House Officer Contract, was the actionable contract, and that because the district court erred in excluding evidence relevant to the definition of “contumacious conduct” in that agreement the judgment should be vacated and the case remanded for new trial.

Unpublished

  • U.S. v. Damm, 23-10944, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Barksdale, Haynes, Higginson), criminal
    • Affirming revocation of supervised release.
  • Raskin v. Gremont, 23-10960, appeal from N.D. Tex.
    • per curiam (Clement, Elrod, Willett), election law
    • Affirming dismissal for lack of standing of challenge by voter to enjoin use of electronic voting machines.
  • Washington v. Sunflower County, 23-60072, appeal from N.D. Miss.
    • per curiam (King, Jones, Oldham), First Amendment
    • Affirming 12(c) dismissal of plaintiff’s claims that he was terminated in retaliation for his exercise of his First Amendment rights.
  • Hoyos v. Garland, 23-60565, petition for review of BIA order
    • per curiam (Willett, Duncan, Ramirez), immigration
    • Denying Colombian citizens’ petition for review of BIA order upholding the denial of asylum, withholding of removal, and protection under the CAT.